jax_rox

Banding is the result of lower bit depth, though that banding will look worse when it's highly compressed. So, sure more highly compressed footage will make banding look worse. But the reason you have banding in the first place is due to lower bit depth (i.e. available 'steps').

I shot on my A7s extensively for three years before upgrading to the II and I can't say that I was ever lamenting the lack of IBIS. Certainly, if it was a choice over IBIS or low light, I'd go wit low light personally (at least in the case of A7sII) despite the fact I agree with: It's a rare situation that I shoot over 3200ISO. Too much obsession with paper specs these days. That said, the sensor size of the A7sII is what secures it for me. And the benefit of its low light abilities is that you can shoot at 800, 1600, 3200 ISO very cleanly, not something you can do much on other DSLRs. That's a much more useful feature than being able to shoot a mess of noise at 409,500 ISO.

The GH5 is hardly the best choice for low light. An A7sII that's cheaper is an A7s. How much do you really need 4K internal?

Magnetic timeline and arbitrary tracks are just an entirely different way of working. Getting used to FCPX's idea of what a 'storyline' is. Given how powerful FCPX is and its ability to do tasks in the background, I find it's very quick to get an assembly together. The iMovie style scrubbing of source clips makes it very easy to quickly look at what you have and grab what you need. Being able to work with your footage while it's still transcoding, or exporting a master file whilst you move onto another edit, or start your cutdown options is incredibly efficient. I find fine-cutting and doing fine adjustments after your assembly more difficult. That said, the newest version does a lot to help this. You just need to get your head around the way the timeline works. The magnetic timeline quirks are what make it very different to others. Having clips 'attach' to others so that if you delete one, it might delete 5 others that are attached to it. Extending a piece of audio or video and have it push everything else back instead of sliding underneath. But they sound worse than they are - at least once you're used to it (the first few times it happens you'll curse a bit). I actually think FCPX is a great option for long form documentary, better than Premiere in some/many respects. But do a smaller project on it first to get your head around it.

FCPX would actually be alright to edit a doco on. That said, it takes some getting used to. I've been switching between it and Media Composer because Media Composer struggles with XAVC for some bizarre reason, and you can get an edit together pretty quick on FCPX. You just need to rethink the way you're used to working. You can still quite easily use both of these with a non-Adobe editor.

Transcoding XAVC-S to ProRes is entirely different to originating in ProRes. Yes, better chroma sub-sampling and a far superior codec are nothing to sneeze at. ProRes is one of the best codecs out there. That said, banding is a direct result of limited bit-depth. Compression artefacts will clear up, and by virtue of recording in a 10-bit 'space' (even though the signal is limited to 8-bit), you may find banding clears up to some extent, but banding in and of itself is a result of bit depth not compression. I've never encountered this before. How strange. Good to know!

Saw some footage of this camera in UHD on one of the new Panasonic OLEDs and it's stunning.

Use a waveform monitor. Or false colour can be used in a pinch if you have it set right. I know you'll need an external monitor for those. If you don't have them, you'll need to test. Without knowing what you mean by your exposure being 'spot on', it's very difficult to advise.

The F3 has Slog1, a radically different curve to both Slog2 and Slog3. I remember plenty of people struggling with SLog3 on the F55, for example, who had come from Alexas and not put the time in to learn the curve. Exposing 'correctly' using a LUT is entirely different to learning how the curve works and placing your exposure where you want it. Which you need to do. I was disappointed with the noise and dynamic range out of Alexa's until I learned how LogC works and exposed accordingly. CineAlta is Sony, so they have Slog2 or 3. They're not pseudo-logs. Canon's C-log started as a pseudo-log. It's morphed since then, but it's original intention was to have a 'lightweight' log that was easy to grade and get a good image out of quickly. It comes at the expense of dynamic range (though Canon cameras also use digital gain for ISO, rather than the Sony/Alexa/RED method of shifting mid-point, which also affects both dynamic range and noise). Sony's intention is a more aggressive curve that gives you the maximum dynamic range possible. It's a more aggressive curve than the Alexa's LogC. If you expose it with knowledge of SLog and how it works and where it's best to expose the things you want exposed, it looks great. If you treat SLog3 like C-log or LogC you're going to think it sucks. That's not really a fault on the manufacturer, and realistically there's nothing forcing you to buy or use a Sony camera if you're dead-set against it. Many continue to at all levels of production, despite how supposedly terrible they are. It's a different curve to all of those. You should learn any curve you're going to be shooting on and expose for that particular curve as they're all different and they all put their exposures at different values and hold more or less information in some areas. SLog3 (and 2) are much more aggressive curves than all of those. None of those other curves put skin tones at 35 IRE. I've honestly never had an issue with Sony's white balance, so don't know what you're talking about. Do you mean AWB..? Look, I ain't no Sony fanboy, but I've used Sony's a lot (just as I have Alexa's and Reds and Panasonics). But I spend more than 5 minutes testing how to appropriately expose cameras. Of course I have camera preferences. But I'm a DP who shoild be able to make any camera look good. So when the best the rental house can do on our budget is an F5 or F55 or perhaps an FS7 (and/or I have to use my A7sII in some capacity), I'm going to say 'sure, I can make them look good' because I know I can. I'm not going to complain because Sony make 'such terrible cameras' (that somehow only a small subset of people seem to have trouble with...). I don't really like the images out of the C300. I'm not a fan of Canon's orange tints and ultra-warm skin tones generally. But I understand it and can work with it if necessary. I'm not going to hit up an Internet forum and talk about how bad Canon is because I don't like their camera as much.

There's going to be very little that can compete with the sun and snow that is also small (not to mention rain-proof).

The sensors are different, though they use the same CFA. And really, 'not nearly as good' has a slightly different meaning when talking about the F65. You're certainly right, but the F55 has been used extensively on numerous ultra high-end TV shows and feature films and I would posit that plenty here wouldn't even know. But that's kinda the point. Canon has tweaked Clog to get more out of it, but it's essentially designed as a 'pseudo-log' for consumer use that was able to hold more dynamic range than would otherwise be possible, however still be workable in 8-bit and be easy to pull it back to 'normal'. S-log is entirely different. And that's the problem. You really need to learn your log curves to make things look 'right' - otherwise you shouldn't shoot log. Many people did (and still do) come from Canon and attempt to apply their basic knowledge of Canon log to Sony footage and then get upset when it doesn't work the way they want. S-log3 puts skin tones at about 35-40%IRE or something. Which is super low. You look at that in your live view, assume the skin tones are underexposed, crank the exposure so they look right, and then when you come to grade it can't figure out why your skin tones look so bad. Turns out S-log doesn't put as much information into the exposure where you've ended up putting your skin tones, so of course they start to look ugly. Then you blame Sony for not being able to make a camera that looks any good. Man, it's cheaper than an Alexa SXT. Alexa, which uses SxS cards or needs Codex cartridges and a more expensive card slot for raw, doesn't have a full frame sensor, doesn't shoot in 8k and doesn't have auto focus.

Cue all the comments about how terrible Sony's skin tones are and how unusable SLog is

'I know a lot of friends' and 'I see a lot of people making videos' does not equate to large market research. Despite near constant complaints on here about 'lack of video features' they still have - and have for the past 14 years - the #1 global market share for the DSLR and mirrorless camera segment. Anecdotes about what you 'see' mean absolutely nothing. And yet, they continue, for 14 years in a row, to be the #1 seller of DSLR and mirrorless cameras in the entire world... Shouting in an echo chamber for too long can become dangerous... In the article, Andrew's using examples of a 6Dii with 26MP, and much larger sensor in a similar sized body to the GH5, and disingenuously suggesting that because Panasonic could put 4k into a 12MP LX100 that Canon should be able to do it in a 6Dii. The reality is - they can do it. But if the #1 selling camera manufacturer doesn't include a feature on a camera like that, you can bet the reason isn't 'we hate our customers'. As much as everyone likes to pretend that 'technology' means we should be able to make anything we want these days, making these products is a lot more complex than you think. That's why the A7s wasn't 4k internally in its first iteration. That's why RED have continually updated their sensors and firmware to get better pictures out of them. Arri was late to the party because they spend significantly longer tailoring their sensor. It's not a matter of just throwing a sensor into a box and calling it a day. The signal path from the sensor has an effect on the image. Many moving parts, and it's not easy as everyone on here thinks. I couldn't care less about Canon. I no longer own anything they make, and I won't be buying any of their products any time soon. But it's obvious why they do what they do, and you know what? They're still #1. Despite Sony and Panasonic's best efforts, Canon are still #1. In the world. What does that tell you about the importance of all these little things that everyone here spends pages complaining about? Surely there are better things to spend time doing? It feels like there's been a new post about once a month for the past few years about how Canon sucks because of this or that and how they need to pick up their game because other manufacturers are beating them - oh, but the other manufacturers also suck. Choose a camera that you like, and that works for you and use it. If you need 4k and want Canon, get a 5Div. If you want full frame and sensitivity and internal 4k and log, get an A7sii. If you want full frame with a high MP count, get an A7rII. If you want a camera that does 4:2:2 10-bit 4k internal, and don't mind a small sensor, get a GH5. If proclamations from those on here reflected what the greater world think about cameras, you can bet that Canon would implement every single one of these features. At the end of the day, they're a business. Every business is in the game to make money. And Canon are still making money. Don't forget that Sony and Panasonic are in positions where their profit margins on specific products can be smaller because they're bigger companies. So, they can be more competitive on pricing than Canon or Nikon to gain market traction on new products. As I said previously, and was criticised for using big words, Canon are much more exposed, and by design are much more careful - as a company who is the #1 seller in the world of cameras, they want to keep it that way, and a large part of their business is made up of camera sales. So to continue making money, they need to structure their business in a way to keep making money. Panasonic and Sony are both still relatively new to the camera market, are in much better positions to take risks in the segment. If Sony had released the A7 and it had been an abysmal failure, it could have pulled out of the market and continued on - much like Samsung did. Canon can't. Canon need to keep selling heaps of cameras to heaps of people. So if not including 4k in say the 6Dii means they make a bit more money on it, and the marketplace for 6D video shooters who want 4k is really quite small - why would they include 4k?

Sony & Panasonic didn't have as established a stills shooter customer base. The Sony/Panasonic stills shooters were casual weekend shooters. Conversely, Canon had and still have the vast majority of their customer base - the people buying their products - who are professional shooters. Sony & Panasonic were able to be much more nimble in the market and take bigger risks because they had less to lose in that market. Canon takes a risk on a product - say on a product that caters to a smaller market - and they have a lot more to lose. You're very good at being condescending, but perhaps spend more than 3 seconds comprehending what you're reading before jumping in with a comment. And really? Big words? I didn't know words like disingenuous were big words for anyone that passed middle school...

It's pretty disingenuous to use Panasonic as an example considering their sensor sizes are literally half that of the Canon. Use Sony's A7 series (which only the most recent iteration of included internal 4k, by the way - though sure they at least offered 4k externally before that), and a6000 series - sure. They've been able to make 4k internal happen in a much smaller body, though they still took longer than Panasonic. There's significantly more data to process on a full frame sensor in 4k vs an m4/3 sensor. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Video shooters are not a huge market for Canon DSLRs and mirrorless. That's why the compromise you talk about has come at the costs of video. That's why they're attempting to develop better photo feartures first. Does that mean they couldn't have developed the technology to do everything you want? Course not. But obviously their focus is and always has been still shooters in the DSLR line-up. That's why they have a Cinema EOS line-up to cater for video shooters. Sony and Panasonic don't/didn't have the established customer base and were/are much more able to be nimble and take bigger risks. That's why they were able to make such a dent.

IMO, Behringer tend to be very 'meh' - they get the job done but you'll never find anyone too excited about them. MIDAS pre-amps is IMO mostly a marketing gimmick, but I'd be happy for someone to prove me wrong. As for the others, hard to go terribly wrong. I've had mediocre experiences with Behringer and PreSonus. I've had great experiences with Zoom and Focusrite. I'm rocking a Zoom UAC2 at the moment as my portable interface and loving it. A friend had the Steinberg and I couldn't warm to it. How much are second-hand Apogee Duet's going for these days?

It doesn't affect its usability. But, as it seems everyone forgets when a new camera is released and the pile-on on here starts for every little thing; companies are in business first and foremost to make money. Making customers happy with features they want is not done because a company is nice. It's done so that customers will buy their product, and they will make money. As Panasonic, if you look at the (lack of) popularity of the MFT mount in the market they're targetting, the popularity of the Canon C-series and the Sony FS-series, and the popularity of over-sampled S35 sensors - you'd be questioning an MFT mount. Do you not think the discussion was had? Do you think they're sitting reading this forum now thinking 'oh damn, how did we never think of making it an MFT mount??!!!'. Every decision is made for a reason, and it's (almost) always about what's going to be the best solution to get the most money out of the market. EF is a deliberate choice, not an arbitrary one. Camera manufacturers don't make cameras so you have lots of options to choose from, and can choose one that best suits your needs. That's simply a byproduct of competition. Camera manufacturers make cameras to make money. That's their business. RED started making cameras because they knew there was a hole in the market for affordable digital cinema cameras. That meant they could make money out of it. Making high quality film-making accessible to lower budgets was a byproduct. If a camera is a 'sleeper camera,' 'another option,' or 'not very popular,' it's a failed model. Why do you think Samsung are no longer making cameras? Sure - you've got three, and there are many on here who invested. But it obviously wasn't profitable, so they preferred to pull out of the market entirely. Again - Samsung attempted the mid-range DSLR market to make money. Many (including you) think the camera's great. Samsung don't care. Samsung care about their bottom line, and if they're not making money out of their camera manufacturing, then why would they continue to pour money into it? Obviously the decision was made that even if they could gain a foothold down the track, the massive investment to get them there is not worth it at this point in time. If you're Panasonic and you're bringing out a competitive mid-range camera, you're looking at how you can make the most money. If a S35 sensor with an MFT mount was what was going to bring in the most money for them, then you can be sure the EVA1 would be an MFT mount camera with a S35 sensor. I'm not sure how far they are from release, but I'm sure if there's enough want in the market for an MFT camera, they'll release something. Again, it will be a decision made out of whether they can make money from it, not whether a few people on the internet think it would be a good thing to have in a camera.

The problem is no MFT glass that covers a S35 sensor. You're suggesting Panasonic shoot themselves in the foot with an obscure (at pro video level) lens mount, one that already doesn't lock, and you want to build that up with adapters...? As I said previously, when they were building the LT, they did extensive market research, and the cry was for EF mount - not MFT. I understand the adapting possibilities. I do it myself with Sony. But I just don't believe that it's a huge market at this level. As for why no locking ring? Why no locking ring on the FS5? Why no locking ring on the C300? And what 'action' do you think the FS5, FS7, C300 et al see? Weddings, corporate interviews, doco/run 'n' gun, reality tv, etc. Many FS5/7 users have adapted their E-mounts to take EF glass. If you really wanted to, any of these cameras could be used to shoot a feature film. You really think that the only reason major production companies are say not shooting feature films on an EVA1 is because of a non-locking lens mount..? These cameras are aimed squarely at 'weddings, corporates, run 'n' gun' etc. I'm not sure where you got the idea that they weren't...? What's the point of releasing a S35 camera with a lens mount that forces you to crop hugely without adapting lenses...? Sure, the JVC may have done it, but how popular is it..? You can shoot a feature on any camera if you really want. The lens mount is not stopping you from shooting. I'm invested in E-mount glass. I think it's great that Sony have expanded their E-mount offering both in lenses and in cameras. But I'm under no illusions that E-mount is going to be around forever, or that all cameras will have E-mounts. If Sony release another FZ-mount, or PL mount camera, I won't bemoan them for not catering to me. If I really want lenses that will last a lifetime, I'll buy PL. I can't afford to buy the sets I want, so for the moment I'm sticking with what I have. If Sony's next camera is an $8,000 EF-mount camera, I'll probably say things like 'confusing for Sony, seeing as they already have two E-mount cameras'/'I wish it wasn't E-mount'/'I wish I didn't invest so heavily in E-mount'. I certainly won't say things like 'omg with this lens mount, there's absolutely no way anyone is going to take this camera seriously!!!!! lololol' Panasonic's market for this camera is not people who want to shoot micro-budget features. If you want to shoot a feature, they want you to get a Varicam - which, by the way, is PL or EF mount only.... You want to shoot a feature with an MFT mount, I guess you have to go to Blackmagic... If there really was a market for S35 cameras with MFT mounts, don't you think Blackmagic would've gone there already...? Not really... I've never liked Canon's colour all that much, always hated the ergonomics of the C-series, and never use auto focus. As for internal raw, I don't have the need for it at this level of camera. If I'm shooting a project where raw might enter the equation, I'm not going to be shooting on a $6k camera. And even then, I'm more likely to shoot ProRes444 or similar because I just don't really see the need for it in most of the stuff I shoot. I used to shoot REDraw because it was the only thing you could shoot on a RED, and comparing the workflow to an Alexa shooting 444, I'd much rather shoot ProRes unless we really truly have the budget to deal with raw. As for everything else, specs and price-wise it's positioned more as a competitor to the FS7. And again - the FS7 doesn't have an EVF. It's always surprised and confused me as to why the FS5 does. We still don't know the final price either, so who knows. Silly, I think, to make assumptions without: final price, any footage or even final specs... Then it becomes a more expensive camera. A swappable lens mount alone would make the price rise drastically, and I just don't think at this level that there's enough market for it to justify. Consumer and professional divisions are always separate. Also, that lens came out like two years ago... M4/3 just isn't a lens mount or sensor option that is available in really any high-end camera. That doesn't mean it can't be used to create high-end work... But it also means that competitiveness of the market dictates what lens mount you should go with. And if you release a camera with pretty decent specs, in a cropped sensor and with an obscure lens mount, you're dooming your camera into obscurity. And yes, I know that you can have an MFT lens mount with a S35 sensor, but it just doesn't really make sense from any standpoint, unless Panasonic decided to start making S35 MFT lenses, and then everything gets confused - as it did for Sony when they first started making full frame E mount lenses and cameras.

I think what you're mostly describing here is simply the result of using a Kodak CCD sensor. Had Kodak had any foresight, we could have seen a truly great high-end Kodak digital cinema camera... maybe. CMOS is cheaper and rolling shutter isn't as bad as CCD smear - and in fact using global shutters or just faster readout, rolling shutter is either entirely eliminated, or reduced hugely. RED is the company that really started the 'resolution wars' for lack of a better term. Consumers are enticed by large numbers. Sure, a small subset of consumers are more enticed by something as airy-fairy as 'colour science' - and those people went for Arri. The rest talk non-stop about sensor resolution as if it's the determining factor of a camera system

This camera takes SDXC, and let's get real for a minute: raw is wholly unnecessary for 98% of the camera's target market. The Varicam LT may be 'only' a few thousand more - but Starr factoring P2 cards and the price jumps drastically. And since when does the LT do raw internally..? The FS7 doesn't even have a proper EVF. Stick a loupe on the LCD and voila - you've got the same solution as the FS7. You know the URSA Mini also doesn't come with an EVF? And really, the 'back of the body' EVFs on the C series and FS5 are next to useless. But sure, feel free to denigrate a camera based on the cost of wholly unnecessary accessories

Based on specs alone, it's a fair step-up from at least the FS5 - I haven't delved into the C200 enough (I don't particularly like the Canon C-series) to make a comment on that one... The FS5 maxes out at 4:2:0 8-bit internally @ 4k, unless you shell out extra for the raw upgrade. FS7ii's a good $2kish more and offers similar features. Even FS7i's still north of the $8k mark. And the C300 is well north of it. Despite it's size being more like an FS5, it seems to me to be more of an FS7 competitor based on specs alone... Again, without seeing the image, it's difficult to make much of a judgement. If it is indeed a pared-down VaricamLT, it's a bargain for sure. That said, I really quite like the images out of the F5, and don't really like the images out of the FS7 despite them sharing the same sensor.... So - without seeing footage, it's hard to say. I don't know a lot about MFT, but aren't almost all (if not all) of the lenses designed for an MFT sensor, and therefore wouldn't cover the image circle? An interchangeable lens mount (like they have for the LT, just EF/MFT instead) would have been an interesting solution, with a sensor crop when the MFT mount is on... I imagine it would potentially be too expensive an option though... Be interesting to see if this has AF with EF glass, as last I heard the LT certainly doesn't...

It's cheaper than both the FS7 and the C300, and it overall should give a better image (and better specs, in general) than an FS5. URSA Mini Pro is still a bit of a gamble IMO. I'm still not convinced by the BMD image. I attended the launch of the VaricamLT and it was expressed that EF mount is what most professional users want, if not PL. They did a lot of market research, and the VaricamLT has an interchangeable EF/PL mount. The GH5 and Varicam lines are two quite different lines. To really be competitive, they were going to have to make a S35 camera, and MFT is simply not that. I mostly question the timeline: it seems they really wanted to get the jump on Canon. Why else would you release incomplete details of a camera (you don't even know yet what the Dual ISOs are...???) and without footage? Sony, Canon, RED, all release some sort of official footage when releasing a new camera... and I can't imagine any of them releasing a camera without an idea of what the native ISOs are..... I wonder if maybe they were expecting the product to be at completion by Cinegear, but some unforeseen circumstance has kept that from being the case, but they'd committed to releasing details of a new camera... I just don't quite get it. The camera looks great, but how will we know until we see some footage..?

It frustrates me generally that the Phantom & Mavic series are kinda-sorta marketed as a cheap, professional option to something like an Inspire Pro. Certainly, they have many great features, but overall the image quality is sub-par and barely usable except in very specific circumstances. Some of the stuff online looks okay, but only at first glance. Spend more than 5 seconds looking at it and you'll start to notice all the imperfections in the image. Certainly to get something really usable you have to be very prepared, with NDs and settings that you've tried and tested and know are the best for your workflow. Even then, the wrong subject (i.e. too many trees for example) will still end up looking quite average. Whether you want to use it for client work is up to you - and depends on your clients. Personally, I think I would assume I wouldn't use any of the footage, and let myself be pleasantly surprised should there be any useable stuff in there, rather than assuming you're going to use it all and be disappointed when it all looks mediocre.

By 'Canon-like decision' do you mean 'making a business decision to maximise profit'?

You're assuming the people at these events are just marketing underlings. That's often not the case